Judgment:
ORDER
Om Prakash, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has come up to this Court on second round.
3. By order dated 26th May, 1992, the Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner for interim order and directed the petitioner to pay entire amount of duty within 12 weeks. The petitioner challenged the said order of the Tribunal before this Court. By order dated 27th August, 1992 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) this Court in the interest of justice allowed the period of three months to the petitioner to comply with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. This Court also observed that it would be open to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for permission to furnish security in lieu of cash deposit and the Tribunal shall have liberty to consider the petitioner's prayer on merit in accordance with law.
4. The petitioner approached the Tribunal and the latter by order dated 12th February 1992 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) rejected the plea of the petitioner to dispense with the requirement of cash deposit on the ground that no financial hardship was shown by the petitioner. By the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of duty as directed by the earlier order dated 26th May, 1992, within a period of four weeks.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has come up to this Court. Grievance of the petitioner is that it was not heard on merits and that the Tribunal took the view that the petitioner was not financially handicapped, because profits had been reflected in the balance sheet. The petitioner would have established financial hardship had it been given opportunity in that behalf urged by the petitioner. It is contended that it is not possible for the petitioner to deposit duty in cash.
6. Be that as it may, we dispose of this petition finally after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. Impugned order dated 12-2-1993 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) passed by the Tribunal is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Tribunal directing it to give a fresh opportunity to the petitioner of being heard to establish financial hardship, if any suffered thereby. If the Tribunal does not agree with the contention of the petitioner that it is not in a position to deposit the duty in cash, as directed by Tribunal's order dated 26th May, 1992, then some reasonable time will be allowed to the petitioner to enable it to comply with order dated 26th May, 1992. If the Tribunal agrees with the contention of the petitioner that it suffered financial hardship, then may pass a fresh order in accordance with law.